Overview 4 matches · 1 protected · 1 exploited · 1 CISA KEV · 3 EPSS ≥ 0.5
Protected by Waratek
2
50.0%
Rule in development
0
0.0%
Mitigation candidate
2
50.0%
No exploit published
0
0.0%
blocked by ARMR today
1
25.0%
partly blocked
1
25.0%
not blocked
2
50.0%
not established
0
0.0%
unrecorded
0
0.0%
Exploited
1
25.0%
Working exploit published
2
50.0%
Proof of concept only
1
25.0%
Forecast only
0
0.0%
No public exploit
0
0.0%
split by
peak 2 / quarter
Q4 171
Protected by Waratek1
High1
partly blocked1
Exploited1
Q1 180
Q2 180
Q3 180
Q4 180
Q1 190
Q2 190
Q3 190
Q4 190
Q1 200
Q2 202
Protected by Waratek1
Mitigation candidate1
High2
blocked by ARMR today1
not blocked1
Working exploit published1
Proof of concept only1
Q3 201
Mitigation candidate1
High1
not blocked1
Working exploit published1
Q4 17Q1 18Q2 18Q3 18Q4 18Q1 19Q2 19Q3 19Q4 19Q1 20Q2 20Q3 20
| CVE | Severity | Published▾ | Status | Exploitation | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2020-13935 | High | 2020-07-14 | Mitigation candidate | Working exploit published | The payload length in a WebSocket frame was not correctly validated in Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M6, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.36, 8.5.0 to 8.5.56 and 7.0.27 to 7.0.104. Invalid payload lengths could trigger an infinite loop. Multiple requests with invalid payload lengths could lead to a denial of service. |
| CVE-2020-11996 | High | 2020-06-26 | Mitigation candidate | Proof of concept only | A specially crafted sequence of HTTP/2 requests sent to Apache Tomcat 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M5, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.35 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.55 could trigger high CPU usage for several seconds. If a sufficient number of such requests were made on concurrent HTTP/2 connections, the server could become unresponsive. |
| CVE-2020-9484 | High | 2020-05-20 | Protected by Waratek | Working exploit published | When using Apache Tomcat versions 10.0.0-M1 to 10.0.0-M4, 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.34, 8.5.0 to 8.5.54 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.103 if a) an attacker is able to control the contents and name of a file on the server; and b) the server is configured to use the PersistenceManager with a FileStore; and c) the PersistenceManager is configured with sessionAttributeValueClassNameFilter="null" (the default unless a SecurityManager is used) or a sufficiently lax filter to allow the attacker provided object to be deserialized; and d) the attacker knows the relative file path from the storage location used by FileStore to the file the attacker has control over; then, using a specifically crafted request, the attacker will be able to trigger remote code execution via deserialization of the file under their control. Note that all of conditions a) to d) must be true for the attack to succeed. |
| CVE-2017-12617 | High | 2017-10-04 | Protected by Waratek | Exploited | When running Apache Tomcat versions 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0, 8.5.0 to 8.5.22, 8.0.0.RC1 to 8.0.46 and 7.0.0 to 7.0.81 with HTTP PUTs enabled (e.g. via setting the readonly initialisation parameter of the Default servlet to false) it was possible to upload a JSP file to the server via a specially crafted request. This JSP could then be requested and any code it contained would be executed by the server. |